Clinical trials for implantable neural prostheses: understanding the ethical and technical requirements.

IF 23.8 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL INFORMATICS Lancet Digital Health Pub Date : 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00222-X
Marcello Ienca, Giacomo Valle, Stanisa Raspopovic
{"title":"Clinical trials for implantable neural prostheses: understanding the ethical and technical requirements.","authors":"Marcello Ienca, Giacomo Valle, Stanisa Raspopovic","doi":"10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00222-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Neuroprosthetics research has entered a stage in which animal models and proof-of-concept studies are translated into clinical applications, often combining implants with artificial intelligence techniques. This new phase raises the question of how clinical trials should be designed to scientifically and ethically address the unique features of neural prostheses. Neural prostheses are complex cyberbiological devices able to acquire and process data; hence, their assessment is not reducible to only third-party safety and efficacy evaluations as in pharmacological research. In addition, assessment of neural prostheses requires a causal understanding of their mechanisms, and scrutiny of their information security and legal liability standards. Some neural prostheses affect not only human behaviour, but also psychological faculties such as consciousness, cognition, and affective states. In this Viewpoint, we argue that the technological novelty of neural prostheses could generate challenges for technology assessment, clinical validation, and research ethics oversight. To this end, we identify a set of methodological and research ethics challenges specific to this medical technology innovation. We provide insights into relevant ethical guidelines and assess whether oversight mechanisms are well equipped to ensure adequate clinical and ethical use. Finally, we outline patient-centred research ethics requirements for clinical trials involving implantable neural prostheses.</p>","PeriodicalId":48534,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Digital Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":23.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Digital Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00222-X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Neuroprosthetics research has entered a stage in which animal models and proof-of-concept studies are translated into clinical applications, often combining implants with artificial intelligence techniques. This new phase raises the question of how clinical trials should be designed to scientifically and ethically address the unique features of neural prostheses. Neural prostheses are complex cyberbiological devices able to acquire and process data; hence, their assessment is not reducible to only third-party safety and efficacy evaluations as in pharmacological research. In addition, assessment of neural prostheses requires a causal understanding of their mechanisms, and scrutiny of their information security and legal liability standards. Some neural prostheses affect not only human behaviour, but also psychological faculties such as consciousness, cognition, and affective states. In this Viewpoint, we argue that the technological novelty of neural prostheses could generate challenges for technology assessment, clinical validation, and research ethics oversight. To this end, we identify a set of methodological and research ethics challenges specific to this medical technology innovation. We provide insights into relevant ethical guidelines and assess whether oversight mechanisms are well equipped to ensure adequate clinical and ethical use. Finally, we outline patient-centred research ethics requirements for clinical trials involving implantable neural prostheses.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
植入式神经假体的临床试验:理解伦理和技术要求。
神经义肢研究已经进入了将动物模型和概念验证研究转化为临床应用的阶段,通常将植入物与人工智能技术相结合。这个新阶段提出了一个问题,即临床试验应该如何设计,以科学和道德地解决神经假体的独特特征。神经假体是复杂的网络生物设备,能够获取和处理数据;因此,它们的评估不能简化为药理学研究中的第三方安全性和有效性评估。此外,评估神经假体需要对其机制有一个因果关系的理解,并审查其信息安全和法律责任标准。一些神经假肢不仅影响人类的行为,还影响意识、认知和情感状态等心理机能。在这一观点中,我们认为神经义肢的技术新颖性可能会对技术评估、临床验证和研究伦理监督产生挑战。为此,我们确定了一套针对这种医疗技术创新的方法和研究伦理挑战。我们提供有关伦理准则的见解,并评估监督机制是否配备良好,以确保充分的临床和伦理使用。最后,我们概述了涉及植入式神经假体的临床试验以患者为中心的研究伦理要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
41.20
自引率
1.60%
发文量
232
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Lancet Digital Health publishes important, innovative, and practice-changing research on any topic connected with digital technology in clinical medicine, public health, and global health. The journal’s open access content crosses subject boundaries, building bridges between health professionals and researchers.By bringing together the most important advances in this multidisciplinary field,The Lancet Digital Health is the most prominent publishing venue in digital health. We publish a range of content types including Articles,Review, Comment, and Correspondence, contributing to promoting digital technologies in health practice worldwide.
期刊最新文献
The urgent need to accelerate synthetic data privacy frameworks for medical research From the 100 Day Mission to 100 lines of software development: how to improve early outbreak analytics Prediction of emergency admissions: trade-offs between model simplicity and performance AI for medical diagnosis: does a single negative trial mean it is ineffective? Artificial intelligence-guided detection of under-recognised cardiomyopathies on point-of-care cardiac ultrasonography: a multicentre study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1